Jusme wrote:The only place that I feel should be treated the same as government property, are hospitals, that accept, Medicare (paid for by me) Medicaid (paid for by me) Obamacare (again, paid for by me) Or if they are designated a County hospital that is required to accept patients who have none of the listed ways to pay (once again paid for by me)
I understand your argument for property owners doing business with the public, and in most if not all cases are licensed in some way by the government, not being able to post signs prohibiting LTC holders from bringing their handguns into their business. But,I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service. Whether it is LTC holders or refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. That being said, I think that Charles is right in that, we would have almost certainly gotten none of the laws passed regarding LTC, if it weren't for giving in to the demand for business owners, to be allowed to prohibit carrying.JMHO

How about every place that totally prohibits licensed carry be required to provide bank-quality safety-deposit boxes for LTC holders to secure their handguns? After all, any place that is concerned about the lawful carrying of handguns should be even more concerned about theft of said handguns from the vehicles of their patrons.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Veterans get the initial and all renewal licenses for $25 while those age 60 yrs and over get a 50% reduction. The revenue generated by licensee fees is well below the $140 initial license fee and it's probably below the $70 renewal fee.

Chas.

When did the Vet deal change? When I applied 3 years ago, just arrived from CA, I was both a Vet and a senior. I got a 50% discount either way. I remember asking if I could take both, 50% of 100% as a Vet (I was a Vet first), and 50% of 50% as a senior.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Veterans get the initial and all renewal licenses for $25 while those age 60 yrs and over get a 50% reduction. The revenue generated by licensee fees is well below the $140 initial license fee and it's probably below the $70 renewal fee.

Chas.

When did the Vet deal change? When I applied 3 years ago, just arrived from CA, I was both a Vet and a senior. I got a 50% discount either way. I remember asking if I could take both, 50% of 100% as a Vet (I was a Vet first), and 50% of 50% as a senior.

No deal, they said.

2013.

Chas.

Don't get me wrong. I was happy to pay the $70, either as a Vet or a Senior. Compared to the seemingly endless hassle, delay, and expense of getting a CA permit, it was a breath of fresh air to be here.

Some of the croakers may think I over exaggerate, but every government entity we dealt with, the utilities and most of the businesses we traded with were models of efficient, pleasant, responsiveness. I had a sore throat upon arrival and no lozenges. The head of the department at a Target apologized that they were out during a restocking period and lent me some from her personal stash until I could get to Walmart!

It's good to know next time will be even cheaper, if I live.

Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

steveincowtown wrote:
- So called "Constitutional Carry." If there are any amongst us that don't think CC can work in Texas, please show me examples of how this has been a problem in other states that have it, and then as a follow up explain why Texans aren't as good of people as the residents of those states.

That's irrelevant. It's not a question of whether or not CC can "work in Texas" or it's a "problem in other states," etc. It's a question of whether or not it would be passed by the legislature. And it wouldn't. Period.

Jusme wrote:I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service.

According to a conversation I had with legislative staff, the concept of private property rights is the overwhelming, dominant factor in opposition to removing any business owner's right to post signage. It's not going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

Jusme wrote:I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service.

According to a conversation I had with legislative staff, the concept of private property rights is the overwhelming, dominant factor in opposition to removing any business owner's right to post signage. It's not going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

Wonder how they got the parking lot bill and the exemption for off duty LEO past the Legislature's overwhelming respect for business owners?

I like to believe that the State should play no role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of business owners who otherwise invite you on their property by opening for business. So you have every right to put up a sign excluding red t shirts on your business, however the State has no obligation to arrest those that ignore it before you ask them to leave...

Jusme wrote:I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service.

According to a conversation I had with legislative staff, the concept of private property rights is the overwhelming, dominant factor in opposition to removing any business owner's right to post signage. It's not going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

Well, first of all, even in Texas plenty of government entities already dictate how business owners conduct their business, in hundreds if not thousands of ways, including who may or may not be refused service and the circumstances thereof. The 30.06/30.07 signs themselves are examples of such dictates, as is the parking lot bill and the Motorist Protection Act.

Second, I don't understand why it would be a violation of private property rights if we simply required that a business owner ask you to leave before it rose to the level of criminal trespassing. They still have the right to exclude licensed carriers (if they somehow even knew you were carrying assuming you're concealed).

I think we can strengthen pre-emption by using the property rights angle. We have state agencies that require businesses to post, two I know of are the Department of Family and Protectives Services along with the Department of Ageing and Disability Services. These are often private facilities that are required to prohibit firearms in order to be licensed by the state, even if the property owner doesn't wish to, and they are required because of rules made by a state agency rather than a law passed by the legislature. DFPS requires day care providers to prohibit firearms unless the day care is prohibited by the fines for signs law (I believe I still have this from them via email). DADS requires nursing facilities to prohibit concealed carry.

I am also a Gun guy, Car Guy, and Computer Guy and a currently former podcaster.

G.A. Heath wrote:I think we can strengthen pre-emption by using the property rights angle. We have state agencies that require businesses to post, two I know of are the Department of Family and Protectives Services along with the Department of Ageing and Disability Services. These are often private facilities that are required to prohibit firearms in order to be licensed by the state, even if the property owner doesn't wish to, and they are required because of rules made by a state agency rather than a law passed by the legislature. DFPS requires day care providers to prohibit firearms unless the day care is prohibited by the fines for signs law (I believe I still have this from them via email). DADS requires nursing facilities to prohibit concealed carry.

Interesting that a department such as DFPS can demand of private agencies something that is illegal for themselves to do.

Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's not a matter of whether a license should be required to carry a gun. The question is what can get passed in 2017; unlicensed carry cannot. Therefore, we work on what can pass.

Chas.

Not just that, Charles, but what should NOT pass as well. For example, they are expecting an intense effort to disallow the big, ugly 06/07 signs and move to red-slash gunbuster signs, or something anybody can print out on a sheet of paper, with the full support of the Texas Association of Business. Its not like we can sit back and put our feet up.

Ruark wrote:For example, they are expecting an intense effort to disallow the big, ugly 06/07 signs and move to red-slash gunbuster signs, or something anybody can print out on a sheet of paper, with the full support of the Texas Association of Business. Its not like we can sit back and put our feet up.

Can't remember who it was, but during the last session one Republican Senator said he supported making the 30.06 sign ban both Concealed and Open Carry (the idea being that any business that bans Concealed probably will be banning Open as well). 30.07 would still be available for businesses that just want to ban Open Carry. So there very well might be a Republican authored bill for that next session to sideline the gunbuster bill that the Democrats will put forth.

Jusme wrote:I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service.

According to a conversation I had with legislative staff, the concept of private property rights is the overwhelming, dominant factor in opposition to removing any business owner's right to post signage. It's not going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

Wonder how they got the parking lot bill . . .

1. It does not require an employer to allow guns in a building;
2. It places equal value on the private property of the employer (parking lot) and the private property of the employee (car);
3. Not allowing guns in the employee's car (their private property) disarms the employee from the time they leave home until they return after work.

ScottDLS wrote:and the exemption for off duty LEO past the Legislature's overwhelming respect for business owners?

Pretty much any pro-LEO bill is going to pass in Texas, unless it is absurd.

ScottDLS wrote:I like to believe that the State should play no role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of business owners who otherwise invite you on their property by opening for business. So you have every right to put up a sign excluding red t shirts on your business, however the State has no obligation to arrest those that ignore it before you ask them to leave...

You refute your own stated position. You clearly do want the state to "play a role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of the business owners . . ." You want the state to arrest and prosecute anyone who does not leave private property when told to do so. You would expressly allow a property owner to tell someone to leave specifically because they have a gun. It's only the method of of delivering the message that you want to change. You want to allow a person who knows that guns are not welcome (saw the 30.06 sign) to enter property anyway and force the owner to confront the armed trespasser. You won't sell that argument to many people.

As I've said many times, I support not allowing businesses to prohibit Licensees from carrying concealed handguns. However, I won't push the issue because it has no support and pushing it would pit legislative friends against friends and hurt our overall effort. (I would note that my preferred change would not force a confrontation between the business owner and the Licensee as would yours.)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
...
You refute your own stated position. You clearly do want the state to "play a role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of the business owners . . ." You want the state to arrest and prosecute anyone who does not leave private property when told to do so. You would expressly allow a property owner to tell someone to leave specifically because they have a gun. It's only the method of of delivering the message that you want to change. You want to allow a person who knows that guns are not welcome (saw the 30.06 sign) to enter property anyway and force the owner to confront the armed trespasser. You won't sell that argument to many people.

As I've said many times, I support not allowing businesses to prohibit Licensees from carrying concealed handguns. However, I won't push the issue because it has no support and pushing it would pit legislative friends against friends and hurt our overall effort. (I would note that my preferred change would not force a confrontation between the business owner and the Licensee as would yours.)

Chas.

I really wasn't as clear as intended as I've made this case in a number of threads...but to keep it on topic, I will clarify my position in regards to political capital and 30.06.

If it was worth the political capital, which you have stated it's not...I would like to see exactly what you have proposed, but this is how I would articulate it:

- Make it not a crime to carry a concealed handgun past a sign in a business open to the public. That would require making 30.06 not apply to those businesses. I am assuming oral notice (30.05) still applies as long as the reason is anything other than carrying a concealed handgun. I'm not refuting my argument by still allowing 30.05 notice.

- My main argument is that 30.05 was never intended to apply to enforcing codes of conduct by sign or written notice, except that it was interpreted as such for handguns by AG Morales. His ruling was based on the legislative discussion record of CHL law, but he applied trespass law (30.05) in a new way with regards to signs prohibiting specific conduct.

This was then mooted by 30.06 in 1997. The nice thing about 30.06 is that it clarifies how notice must be given for prohibiting a specific conduct (carrying a concealed handgun), there is no such clarification in 30.05. If 30.05 was really intended and held to prohibit specific conduct, by written notice, on publicly open businesses, then NO COPS, NO POCKETKNIVES, and NO CELL PHONES signs (in whatever form delivered) would automatically create a class B misdemeanor trespass crime every time someone failed to notice them and comply. You would not be required to discover and confront the cop, pocketknife carrier, or cell phone concealer, for them to be committing a crime. This seems unusual and not the way most general trespass statutes in other jurisdictions, or even in Texas have previously been interpreted.

I guess we've gone as far as possible as we can with the 30.06 sign violation being reduced to a class C. This is good because it protects people who miss the sign due to placement, etc. I'd like to see the 46.035 places eliminated and maybe school carry.

steveincowtown wrote:I am always left scratching my head when in Texas we have:
Super Majority in Senate
Super Majority in House
A Governor who is arguably the most pro gun in our State's History
A Republican State Platform that specifically calls for Constitutional Carry while retaining licensing for Reciprocity purposes

And we still talk about "Political Capital." How about our elected Republican public servants just start acting as such?

My agenda would be:

- 30.06/30.07 have no force of law without oral notification of Trespass (before anyone jumps on me, look at all the states where this is the case)

- Strike the requirement to show CHL/ inform. Have you watch the news lately? There are to many fake cops out there right now. Imagine you get pulled over by one of these guys, had over your ID/CHL, he takes your gun, etc. Doesn't sound like a situation that would end well.

- So called "Constitutional Carry." If there are any amongst us that don't think CC can work in Texas, please show me examples of how this has been a problem in other states that have it, and then as a follow up explain why Texans aren't as good of people as the residents of those states.

JMHO

Haven't we won the elections in TX? We should be able to do everything we need to do so "shall not be infringed" is achieved.

Edit:
In any case, IMHO, in order of priority, political capital spent to be decided by the powers that be, the agenda for 2017 legislative session:

1. Removal of off limit areas for LTC
2. 30.06/30.07 have no force of law without oral notification of Trespass
3. Constitutional Carry

I agree, ending the gun free killing zones should be top priority and until the SC rules that the 2A gaurantees the conceal carry of guns in public I'm ok with putting Const. Carry on the backburner for now.

Chance favors the prepared.Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.There is no safety in denial.When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?

We have won a lot of elections, but, we haven't completely won the hearts and minds of those who still have to fear a left leaning constituency. Even among some of the most staunch conservative members, there is still a lingering .... call it doubt, fear, old school thinking, whatever, that still sees LTC holders as a fringe portion of society. The last session with "in your face" demonstrations, by those who shall not be named, has not helped to sway those attitudes. We have consistently demonstrated our good intentions, good will, and good behavior over the past 20+ years, but old ideas die hard.
Couple that with the fact, that while these things matter to LTC holders, we only represent a small portion of the population. So even other gun owners, who are not LTC holders, aren't greatly concerned about carry restrictions.

So what happens, when more legislation is proposed to "free up" LTC holders, the response is, "What do they want now?' These battles are not won easily, and must be approached with an understanding of the opposition, even if it is a passive opposition. JMHO